Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Fixed Scarlet and 4K Projection.

Paul Whittington said:
Ahhhh, so the SD camera merely stretched the pixels horizontally rather than squeeze the image vertically - gotcha.
Click to expand...

There were some SD cameras with 4x3 sensors that basically recorded a slightly smaller 4x3 area of the sensor when in 4x3 mode, and used the full width of the sensor, but less of the height, when in 16x9 mode. Think of the 4x3 and 16x9 frames overlaid in a cross-shape sitting inside a larger 4x3 sensor. The idea was the the 4x3 and 16x9 images would both use about the same number of photosites on the sensor for equal quality, but it did mean that you weren't getting the best possible 4x3 image that the sensor could in theory create.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Uprezzing to a better format, whether 4K projection, 70mm print, IMAX print, doesn't in itself make a lower resolution format look worse. A lot of it depends on the degree of image enlargement on the screen of course.
David, do you think that uprezzing at such a level would gain different results from whichever company does the uprezzing? Or is it a standard process?
I guess whats in the back of my mind is that after the film is shot and finished on 2k, when uprezzing there might be further (perhaps considere 'artistic') work to be done in terms of sharpening the footage, cleaning the image etc...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I didn't say anything would be gained by uprezzing, only that nothing should be lost.

In terms of 2K uprezzed, many IMAX DMR releases had had to work with 2K DI masters -- for example, the IMAX releases of "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" or the Harry Potter movies. They are all uprezzed (I think to 6K), degrained and resharpened, and then recorded-out to 15-perf 65mm. Probably the IMAX release of "Star Trek" also had to work with a 2K master.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
I didn't say anything would be gained by uprezzing, only that nothing should be lost.

In terms of 2K uprezzed, many IMAX DMR releases had had to work with 2K DI masters -- for example, the IMAX releases of "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" or the Harry Potter movies. They are all uprezzed (I think to 6K), degrained and resharpened, and then recorded-out to 15-perf 65mm. Probably the IMAX release of "Star Trek" also had to work with a 2K master.
Click to expand...

My use of the word 'gain' was perhaps out of context - I didnt mean to suggest that you'd get better results from uprezzing from, for example, a 2k master. I was speaking more to the process itself- are there varying results depending on who has uprezzed the footage, or is it literally a case of degrain and resharpen.
 
my impression of Avatar is that the Imax uprez looked significantly better than the 2k digital presentation even though they both originated from 2k. So I think that an uprez from 3k is certainly a viable process. The question is how it would mix with true 4k or higher originals if intercut?
 
Parts of The Dark Knight were shot with Imax cameras and intercut with 35mm. It was very interesting to watch the film in an Imax projection because the regular 35mm shots looked great, until it would cut to an Imax shot. That was one situation where the audience could see the difference between the two media right on the screen. It was very easy to tell the difference because the Imax shots were a different aspect ratio. They filled the screen while the 35 was letterboxed. The Imax shots were so much clearer and even gave the feeling of falling during some of the helicopter stuff.

I never would have questioned the 35mm print at all but with those Imax shots edited in, I was wishing the whole film was shot that way.
 
David Rasberry said:
my impression of Avatar is that the Imax uprez looked significantly better than the 2k digital presentation even though they both originated from 2k. So I think that an uprez from 3k is certainly a viable process. The question is how it would mix with true 4k or higher originals if intercut?
Click to expand...

An uprez from 3K RGB to 4K RGB or from 3K RAW to 4K RGB? Because the leap from 3K RAW to 4K RGB is massive.
 
16mm has been blown up to 35mm many many times. The question is not can you do. With out question the process can be done. What will it look like? A 2k projection of the 3k raw and a 4k projection of the uprezed, given the same screen size should look roughly the same. Put that up against a 5k original neg displayed at 4k and yes. the 5k will kill.
 
Understood. The thing that I am just trying to be clear about, especially for people who might be new to the forum, for example, is that 3K RAW is nowhere NEAR the resolution of 4K RGB. It's not just "1K" difference, as the numbers might appear to be on the surface. In order to get clean 4K RGB, you need a 5K+ Bayer RAW sensor. 6K would be better.

It's not just "Well we can shoot 3K and easily uprez to 4K... no one will notice." What you are actually talking about doing is uprezing from 2K RGB to 4K RGB - and that is a huge leap.
 
Hi Tom,

I am new to working with RAW and was not aware that the 3K RAW, when converted to RGB would end up being only 2K. Can you elaborate a little more as to why this is - does this mean that after we render out our video projects to RGB they will only be 2K across? Or am I missing something? Thanks.
 
No you can render out a 3k RGB. HOWEVER, the measurable resolution of a bayer pattern sensor, which is what the RED and a few other cameras are, is lower than it's native rez. About 72%. So a 4k bayer pattern is razor sharp at 3.2k.

This means that your 3k scarlet capture camera is really a killer 2k finish camera.

And yes, Tom is right. 3k uprezed to a 4k finish is in fact a blow up and I expect a very noticeable one when displayed at the scale of a theatre screen. Especially if there is any kind of true 4k reference. IE it is cut into a 4k finish movie.
 
Yeah this is why I have been mentioning that we need a Bayer RAW FAQ here. David Mullen wrote a post a week or so back that might serve as a basis for the FAQ.

I think Eric's 72% number is in the right ballpark, for sure.

So yeah, Paul, generally when you shoot RAW you have to figure that a pristine RGB finish is only going to be 3/4 of the RAW. If you ever shoot RAW stills on a Canon or Nikon, for example, you will notice that the images are fairly soft at 1:1, or pixel for pixel. Once you downsample the images, they become very sharp and beautiful. Same thing here with Red RAW.
 
That being said, there are many movies that many people like that were shot on 2/3" chips at 1.9k.
 
Just a note of interest, I'm a member of the SMPTE, the new definition for 3-D standards are 2K for each eye. Twin 3k Scarlets would make for a fantastic setup as you could finish at a pristine 2K, have a convergence safety window and have material that is relatively future-proof for distribution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top